|
Check-in Number:
|
629 | |
| Date: |
2001-Aug-08 15:19:07 (local)
2001-Aug-08 13:19:07 (UTC) |
| User: | simons |
| Branch: | |
| Comment: |
The problem with 16-bit integers is solved. |
| Tickets: |
|
| Inspections: |
|
| Files: |
|
ossp-pkg/srpc/TODO 1.16 -> 1.17
--- TODO 2001/08/08 13:18:46 1.16
+++ TODO 2001/08/08 13:19:07 1.17
@@ -27,19 +27,6 @@
- regression tests for libxds (make check)
done: 100% [-> regression-tests/*.c]
- - 16bit Integers mean trouble when passing them through "...":
-
- | xdr-encode-uint16.c:46: `xds_uint16_t' is promoted to `int' when passed through `...'
- | xdr-encode-uint16.c:46: (so you should pass `int' not `xds_uint16_t' to `va_arg')
-
- Maybe we should skip int16 support at all? Currently I work around
- this problem by implicitely assuming that the short is promoted to
- an int.
-
- To make matters even worse: The RFC doesn't even define how XDR
- deals with 16-bit integers! The mere existance of such a datatype
- is not positively confirmed.
-
- XML: <int32>1234</int32>
uint32, int64, uint64,
|
|
ossp-pkg/xds/TODO 1.16 -> 1.17
--- TODO 2001/08/08 13:18:46 1.16
+++ TODO 2001/08/08 13:19:07 1.17
@@ -27,19 +27,6 @@
- regression tests for libxds (make check)
done: 100% [-> regression-tests/*.c]
- - 16bit Integers mean trouble when passing them through "...":
-
- | xdr-encode-uint16.c:46: `xds_uint16_t' is promoted to `int' when passed through `...'
- | xdr-encode-uint16.c:46: (so you should pass `int' not `xds_uint16_t' to `va_arg')
-
- Maybe we should skip int16 support at all? Currently I work around
- this problem by implicitely assuming that the short is promoted to
- an int.
-
- To make matters even worse: The RFC doesn't even define how XDR
- deals with 16-bit integers! The mere existance of such a datatype
- is not positively confirmed.
-
- XML: <int32>1234</int32>
uint32, int64, uint64,
|
|
